Ha! Suicide Girls Contracts Voided By Cali Court

[Mutt]

anybody who's seen the Suicide Girls model contract knows what a complete piece of legal shit it is but that didn't stop them from scaring girls and photogs with it and even suing them knowing that the average SG model and photog is dirt poor.

Well kudos to GodsGirls for fighting back.

from this chick's blog http://community.livejournal.com/sgirls/521250.html

January 29, 2008 - Los Angles, CA -- A judge with the Los Angeles Superior Court recently made a landmark ruling about the contracts between S.G. Services Inc (AKA SuicideGirls) and the models bound by SG contracts. For years models, industry insiders, and casual observers have voiced the opinion that the model releases were unlawful and overly broad, but until now those that signed it were bound by the terms.

The contracts have been changed many times but most of the model contracts posted online forbid modeling for any other "competing" site while the girls model for SG and for a period of two years after they quit SG. Some of the more popular girls are rumored to have special terms with higher payments and longer periods of exclusivity. It is still unclear what effect the ruling will have on them.

SG has a very broad definition of what a competitor is and have filed lawsuits against former contractors claiming that even single girl personality based web sites are competition to their empire of DVDs, books, magazines, radio shows, merchandise, podcasts, and touring performance troupes. In addition to suing former photographer Philip Warner (AKA Lithium Picnic) they have also blacklisted him, threatening models with lawsuits and removal from the site for working with him even for noncompetitive or portfolio projects.

So what exactly is this ruling? I'm glad you asked.

"The Court finds that, in any matters determined at trial. Plaintiff God's Girls LCC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that each and every version of SG Services, Inc's model release, including but not limited to those attached as Exhibits to the operative Complaint on file in this exaction, are void and invalid as a matter of law, at least to the extent that the releases are intended to provide that a model is "exclusive" to SG Services, Inc. and/or to prohibit a model from modeling or otherwise providing services for God's Girls LLC."

(link provided below)

What does this mean to current and past SG models? I'm no attorney but it appears to open the floodgates for SG models to shoot for other sites if they choose.

Does this impact SG models that live outside California? Possibly. You'll need to talk to an attorney in your area, but this sets a very good precedent against the contract. While SG can not sue Godsgirls over the contract it's not clear if they can still sue the models. Many states that share California's dim view on exclusivity will likely echo this ruling and support freedom for the models.

The owners of SG take competition very seriously. In addition to the ongoing litigation with Godsgirls they have gone after the profits of former model Apnea's website apneatic.com. It appears that SG has spent over half a million dollars fighting lawsuits against perceived competitors in the past year, ironically SG has never successfully won a lawsuit.

SG was able to prevent Chad Grant from launching Deviantnation.com for almost two years by tying him up in federal and civil lawsuits at a cost of over $40,000 to Grant. The cost to the US Government in the Federal case against Grant was probably close to one million dollars. Grant prevailed in both cases.

SG site traffic and membership are reported to be declining steadily as morale and public opinion about the site continue to be affected by the owner's decisions and management choices.

Expect some big changes at SG as they spin this ruling and adapt the site to deal with the change in exclusivity. The proposed set submission system is a genius idea that could potentially save the site owners over $100,000 in photoset purchasing costs per year, and the voting system that goes along with it will allow the owners to "reward" those that stay exclusive and "punish" those that don't by not taking sets. Ex-SG model Mitsuko experienced something similar to this when she was allegedly told by Missy that they were "no longer accepting sets from Mitsuko" shortly after portfolio photos of her shot by Lithium Picnic appeared on the internet.

This explains the recent surge in limbo girls being pushed out and Missy's recent uncharacteristic willingless to let some of the girls out of their contracts.

So the more things change the more they stay the same, but any way you look at it this is a huge win for the models as well as the members of others sites who will now be able to see their favorite models in more than one place online.



Court ruling here

[aico]

Good deal, I knew a lot of girls who were getting fucked by SG, they are fucking scumbags in my book.

[minddust]

Good thing we'll be able to see some punk sluts getting pounded

[Deej]

this is good news...

[V_RocKs]

Good... I hate assholes.

[Almost Evil]

I am so glad the courts finally did something about these ridiculous contracts. More models for me!

[selena]

quantum-x will love this thread. :D

[Shoehorn!]

I want to have sex with all the girls on that site.

[2012]

go suicide ! ...

[Tat2Jr]

Never heard anything about this. I guess it's cause I don't shoot girls with tattoos.

[Dirty F]

Fucking dumb whores want attention and sign dumb ass contracts just so they can show their tits online and talk about how depressive they are and then later they start crying about the contract.

Not any different from the dumb whores who flash their tits for GGW, sign a release and then later sue them.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Fucking dumb whores want attention and sign dumb ass contracts just so they can show their tits online and talk about how depressive they are and then later they start crying about the contract.

Not any different from the dumb whores who flash their tits for GGW, sign a release and then later sue them.

true but the contracts they sign with SG were found to be illegal - SG because they had money and know the models are poor and naive thought they could enslave the models. average SG model makes very little money from them.

exclusive solo girl site model contracts wouldn't hold up in court either probably.

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by Mutt

true but the contracts they sign with SG were found to be illegal - SG because they had money and know the models are poor and naive thought they could enslave the models. average SG model makes very little money from them.

exclusive solo girl site model contracts wouldn't hold up in court either probably.

Still dumb bitches who signed dumb ass contracts because they feel the need to show their tits to ugly scary stalking wankers on the net while calling someone a freak if he looks at their tits when they walk on the street in clothes. That will teach them to think before they do something like that again in the future.

[quantum-x]

woo, here I am.
fucking SG.

[pornguy]

I hate SG.

[Brujah]

Great, now can we get some good promo material over at GodsGirls?

[DigitalDruid]

This is awesome news.... Thanks for the share

[munki]

That's some pretty big schitt...

[Brujah]

bizzump (so I can subscribe)

[NinjaSteve]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Fucking dumb whores want attention and sign dumb ass contracts just so they can show their tits online and talk about how depressive they are and then later they start crying about the contract.

Not any different from the dumb whores who flash their tits for GGW, sign a release and then later sue them.

They should have just tried to be big on myspace.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Sounds like the company was over-reaching.

[digifan]

Now that's good news.

[Iron Fist]

Awesome, and another reason why I will never promote SG... I've already got my gateway pages up for God's Girls and love sending traffic their way... they rock.

[Phil]

good news. I hate those guys.

[DocYall]

Awesome news. Great post!

[AmeliaG]

I regularly get model submissions from talent who also appear on SG and I've always pretty much shot whoever I wanted to. Our criteria are different, so sometimes it is a match and sometimes it is not.

In my experience, GG has as awful an attitude as SG does, but big kudos to NicheBucks for not backing down when SG tried to bully them.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Fucking dumb whores want attention and sign dumb ass contracts just so they can show their tits online and talk about how depressive they are and then later they start crying about the contract.

Not any different from the dumb whores who flash their tits for GGW, sign a release and then later sue them.

Actually, it's very different then your GGW hypothetical...you didn't read the post or judgement did you? maybe I'm wasting my time but...
Firstly, this wasn't a suit brought by a model(s).
Secondly, the SG agreement attempted to prohibit models from doing other modelling work. It was "enforced" only in attempts to stifle competition or prevent models from "leaving" SG.
Thirdly, the "fucking dumb whores" weren't attempting to reclaim their photo shoots or otherwise regretted modelling they simply wanted to continue to work and make money.

[Drake]

That's goingto have a dramatic effect on the future of that site.

[NosMo]

And people wonder why porn has a bad name......


NosMo

[Paul Markham]

In the UK it's in law a contract that excludes you from earning a living in your given profession is invalid. You're not allowed to use contacts and information gathered while working for a former employer.

So maybe if the photographer teaches a girl to stick a dilldo in it might be a problem.

[digifan]

I must be blind... can anyone tell me where to sign up for godsgirls? To promote them I mean.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by digifan

I must be blind... can anyone tell me where to sign up for godsgirls? To promote them I mean.

You can sign up here:
http://www.godsgirls.com/ggaffiliates

[digifan]

Originally Posted by Clark

You can sign up here:
http://www.godsgirls.com/ggaffiliates

Thank you :-D

[Dubya]

LOL! Suicide girls is a joke

[aico]

Originally Posted by NosMo

And people wonder why porn has a bad name......


NosMo

Didn't you hear? SG is not porn and wants nothing to do with the adult industry.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by aico

Didn't you hear? SG is not porn and wants nothing to do with the adult industry.

Yeah, dealing with the various lawsuits for more than a year I can tell you sg seems to believe they are special.
federal suit done, judgement re: model release, done now I think there's just two more trials left...

[Michaelious]

That's good news! Excellent!

[quantum-x]

*cough* still waiting for a serious offer on cutegoths.com - comes with free SG taunting images ;)

[Steve Awesome]

Click this link and you will find out the difference between SG and GG:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xbO5xlujfi0

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by quantum-x

*cough* still waiting for a serious offer on cutegoths.com - comes with free SG taunting images ;)

This is probably just my impression but combining "cute" with "goth" seems to be kind of incongruous and would be sort of a red flag to fans of that niche, but what the hell do I know? I like the Grateful Dead for hippiesakes...

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Steve Awesome

Click this link and you will find out the difference between SG and GG:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xbO5xlujfi0

As a businessperson, I cross-promote with and upsell many programs besides SpookyCash and I think doing so is fairly standard business practice in the adult webmaster community. I've honestly had GG behave just as psycho competitive at Blue Blood and SpookyCash as SG. My company came out of the zine revolution where everybody cross-promoted, same as a lot of webmasters do, but both SG and GG are hostile to their perceived competition.

I've learned that clicking YouTube links on GFY only leads to Rick Astley videos, but I made an exception and clicked on that anyway.

#1 I love my iced lattes and I love seeing good live music and I think bagging on either of those, or the girls you might meet while enjoying either, in this context, is silly.

#2 If the suit NicheBucks paid for was largely about talent who appeared on both GG and SG, then there can't be that big a categorical difference between the girls on each site.

[Brujah]

I think most people won't care about any of this. All that will matter is who converts their traffic.

[aico]

Originally Posted by Steve Awesome

Click this link and you will find out the difference between SG and GG:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xbO5xlujfi0

Ha ha ha That's Chelsea... I shot her for my site last year.

http://promo.alotofmodels.com/chelsea-pink/
http://promo.alotofmodels.com/chelsea-corner/
http://promo.alotofmodels.com/chelsea-shower/

She has nice boobies.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Mutt

exclusive solo girl site model contracts wouldn't hold up in court either probably.

I disagree with you Mutt. There's a big difference between giving a model $200 for a single photo shoot and a company opened up a website based on a specific model. If a company invests two months of shooting with website design, promo materials, etc, and launches a website.... I think it's fine with that model being exclusive to her site for a certain period of time. Usually this is done by cutting a model in on a percentage of the profits.

[Fap]

Originally Posted by Shoehorn!

I want to have sex with all the girls on that site.

im with you on that

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I disagree with you Mutt. There's a big difference between giving a model $200 for a single photo shoot and a company opened up a website based on a specific model. If a company invests two months of shooting with website design, promo materials, etc, and launches a website.... I think it's fine with that model being exclusive to her site for a certain period of time. Usually this is done by cutting a model in on a percentage of the profits.

I think you are totally right on this.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by aico

Ha ha ha That's Chelsea... I shot her for my site last year.

http://promo.alotofmodels.com/chelsea-pink/
http://promo.alotofmodels.com/chelsea-corner/
http://promo.alotofmodels.com/chelsea-shower/

She has nice boobies.

Chelsea worked in the GG office for several months. Really cool gal

[Clark]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

...
#2 If the suit NicheBucks paid for was largely about talent who appeared on both GG and SG, then there can't be that big a categorical difference between the girls on each site.

It was nice chatting about this with you at xBiz however I think you are speaking outside your knowledge of the issue now. To be clear:
NicheBucks did not pay for the considerable legal costs of these lawsuits. They were paid for by GodsGirls.

The suit(s) were largely about protecting the models who "left" sg to model for gg when it started and protecting GG's right to shoot those models. GG could have pulled down the models and settled the suit a few hundred grand and long ago but they chose not to because it would have been a terrible thing to do to the active gg models.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Clark

It was nice chatting about this with you at xBiz however I think you are speaking outside your knowledge of the issue now. To be clear:
NicheBucks did not pay for the considerable legal costs of these lawsuits. They were paid for by GodsGirls.

The suit(s) were largely about protecting the models who "left" sg to model for gg when it started and protecting GG's right to shoot those models. GG could have pulled down the models and settled the suit a few hundred grand and long ago but they chose not to because it would have been a terrible thing to do to the active gg models.

A pleasure chatting with you as well!

I'm bummed that the GG folks were so unprofessional and unbusinesslike because, aside from the fact that I usually upsell everything remotely in my niche, I've always liked and been impressed by all the NicheBucks businesspeople I've met and been on panels with at shows.

I kind of think it doesn't make that much difference which bank account the lawyer checks were drawn on, if NicheBucks bankrolled GG, but I will certainly bow to your direct knowledge of the corporate structure there. My apologies if anything I said implied anything inaccurate.

I think it is extremely cool that this particular suit was taken to its legit conclusion because SG was clearly trying to be a bully and it is always good to see anyone push back against a bully.

[Hollywood Horwitz]

damn, I guess kharma caught up to SG. everybody knows Amelia and Forest were the first to do a site like that.

Amelia, it was awesome as usual hanging with you! I hope we can hang sometime soon,maybe not at a convention, were almost neighbors!